Mangano v Bullen

Case [2020] NSWCA 283


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Mangano v Bullen [2020] NSWCA 283
Hearing dates: 4 June 2020
Decision date: 12 November 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Meagher JA at [91]; Payne JA at [92]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

LAND LAW – whether title to property acquired by fraud – deregistration of company under the 1981 Companies (New South Wales) Code – whether property of deregistered company vested in ASIC – effect of deeming provisions in s 459(6) of the Companies Code

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – operation of bar – any right to set aside transfer statute barred by virtue of s 27 or s 51 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 (Cth)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)

Companies (Application of Laws) Act 1981 (NSW)

Companies (New South Wales) Code

Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1990 (NSW)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Corporations Law of New South Wales

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176

Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; [1988] HCA 16

Baird v WJTHowes Investments Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1232; 68 ACSR 485

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34

Butler v Fairclough (1917) 23 CLR 78; [1917] HCA 9

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170

Pollnow v Ash Street Properties Pty Ltd (1996) 130 FLR 235

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45

Re Jury & Spiers Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 900; 114 ACSR 336

Video Excellence Pty Ltd v Cincotta (1998) 44 NSWLR 742

Waimiha Sawmilling Co Ltd (in liq) v Waione Timber Co Ltd [1926] AC 101

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Silvana Maria Mangano (Appellant)
Rosemary Anne Bullen (First Respondent)
Australian Securities and Investment Commission (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Prince SC (Appellant)
C Birch SC (First Respondent)

Solicitors:
Murphy Lyons (Appellant)
Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/393045
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2019] NSWSC 1704

Date of Decision:
3 December 2019
Before:
Slattery J
File Number(s):
2018/179147

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Silvana Mangano (the appellant) brought an appeal against the dismissal of her claim asserting that her father Rosario Mangano (the deceased) and his partner Rosemary Bullen (the respondent) obtained their interests in a property in Glebe (the property) by fraud, and seeking to set aside the transfer of the property. The appellant also sought to set aside a further transfer which converted the interests of the deceased and the respondent from tenants in common to joint tenants. The appellant, as the executor of the deceased’s…

Continue reading Mangano v Bullen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mangano v Bullen [2020] NSWCA 283
Case
[2020] NSWCA 283
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Mangano v Bullen* concerned a dispute over title to property. The appellant, Mr Mangano, sought to set aside a transfer of property to the respondent, Mr Bullen, alleging the transfer was procured by fraud. The central issue arose from the deregistration of a company under the *Companies (New South Wales) Code* 1981, and whether the property of that deregistered company had vested in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the title to the property had been acquired by fraud. Secondly, the court had to consider the operation of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW), specifically whether any right to set aside the transfer was statute-barred by virtue of sections 27 or 51 of that Act.

The court reasoned that the deeming provisions within section 459(6) of the *Companies Code* were critical to the determination of property vesting upon deregistration. It was held that the effect of these provisions was that the property of the deregistered company did not automatically vest in ASIC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's claim to set aside the transfer was indeed statute-barred under the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW).

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.